Should Millner Replace Garbers This Season If Cal Is...

2,154 Views | 39 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by calumnus
Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Should Millner replace Garbers this season if Cal is eliminated from bowl contention? Or, otherwise, when? "Invest in the future," as they say... This is assuming the coaching staff still believes in Millner's skill set after having seen him repeatedly in practice.

I would be disappointed if they don't at least give Millner SOME game action before the end of the year. A lot can be learned from doing that...
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Yes, if Garbers is playing like he did in games one and five. If he is playing pretty well, as he did in games 2-4, I would say only if Millner is looking really good in practice. and, even then, only in spots (unless he's great in those spots, then more).

In college football, winning now is always the most important goal, even for the long term.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

It's sort of cute in a sad, pathetic way, when you pretend to know anything about football..

C'mon. We need more Cal Football and Cal Basketball discussions on Bear Insider, not less.
GoOskie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

It's sort of cute in a sad, pathetic way, when you pretend to know anything about football..
Cal's troubles go way beyond Garbers, but a change at QB may spark something. Worth a try maybe.
fat_slice
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KenBurnski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He should get a shot even if a low level bowl is still possible. Cal probably isn't blowing anyone out enough for a backup play scenario to emerge in the remaining games, and the thought of trotting out a totally green QB for next year makes me feel like I do when Hanky describes his cheezit eating methods.

And I second Big C - thank you for the football related post.
westcoast101
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think it makes sense. This year is basically irrelevant. Keep Garbers and maybe finish 3-9 or 4-8 instead of 2-10? Might as well get a head start on next season. P
HearstMining
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here's a corollary to the OP's question: What if Garbers turns the season around and has, not a great season, but say a season like 2019 and since last year didn't count towards eligibility, he wants to return for 2022. What should Wilcox do?
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HearstMining said:

Here's a corollary to the OP's question: What if Garbers turns the season around and has, not a great season, but say a season like 2019 and since last year didn't count towards eligibility, he wants to return for 2022. What should Wilcox do?
Wilcox should just resign. That would be the best thing for Cal football in 2022 and beyond.
BearoutEast67
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In a word, no.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


Yes, if Garbers is playing like he did in games one and five. If he is playing pretty well, as he did in games 2-4, I would say only if Millner is looking really good in practice. and, even then, only in spots (unless he's great in those spots, then more).

In college football, winning now is always the most important goal, even for the long term.
I'm confused. Why play Millner when he is not on the depth chart?

#2 is Glover
#3 is Johnson

Why wouldn't Glover or Johnson be the "next guy up"?

Heck, is Millner receiving snaps during the week?

Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
westcoast101 said:

I think it makes sense. This year is basically irrelevant. Keep Garbers and maybe finish 3-9 or 4-8 instead of 2-10? Might as well get a head start on next season. P

My different take: I don't think there's such a thing as an irrelevant year in college football. Not even an irrelevant game (for most programs). Every game we lose risks hurting recruiting, both for current commits and future possibilities. Top high school sophomores are honing their short lists and even younger kids are deciding what schools have cachet.

Below a certain point, maybe Musgrave doesn't return, which means Millner is spinning his wheels learning this complex offense.

And below a certain point, maybe Wilcox doesn't return. I'll leave it to others to argue whether that's good or bad, but it means a complete reboot, with all that entails.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

Big C said:


Yes, if Garbers is playing like he did in games one and five. If he is playing pretty well, as he did in games 2-4, I would say only if Millner is looking really good in practice. and, even then, only in spots (unless he's great in those spots, then more).

In college football, winning now is always the most important goal, even for the long term.
I'm confused. Why play Millner when he is not on the depth chart?

#2 is Glover
#3 is Johnson

Why wouldn't Glover or Johnson be the "next guy up"?

Heck, is Millner receiving snaps during the week?



Agree or disagree, you know why we're talking about playing Millner: the future.

Anyway, I'm more for playing the guy that gives us the best chance to win right now. That is probably Garbers, but I wouldn't hesitate to sit him for a couple of series, if he's not moving the team.
Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HearstMining said:

Here's a corollary to the OP's question: What if Garbers turns the season around and has, not a great season, but say a season like 2019 and since last year didn't count towards eligibility, he wants to return for 2022. What should Wilcox do?
Well, I certainly would welcome Garbers back with open arms, with open competition in camp next year for the QB spot.

Having too many decent QBs isn't our problem -- my main concern wasn't related to Garbers. It was 1) getting a head start on next year by getting next year's likely QB some much needed experience, and 2) if he plays well in limited action this year, at least it gives Wilcox and the program a "story to tell" for next year for recruiting purposes. That is important, and perhaps that prevents a recruit or two from flipping.

I just don't see how having a bit more knowledge about the QBs on your roster, rather than less, is a bad thing heading into next year.

71Bear, those two are obviously #2 and #3 on the QB depth chart because, I assume, Wilcox believes they give Cal the best chance to win RIGHT NOW if Garbers goes down. But neither has a resume worthy of the starting spot. If Garbers did go down, and we'd already been eliminated from bowl contention, we'd be fools not to play Millner.

And, by the way, I don't give a flying **** what any of you think about me. If I've learned anything over the past 20 years, it's that the percentage of losers who post on this board is about the same as the percentage that exists in real life...and it may even be slightly higher. I know it's higher on the game day threads...just read them. My "offense" is asking the mods to move one thread (the Dodgers Giants baseball discussion) to OT -- a thread that is in clear violation of the board's posted rules and is not even labeled "OT." I hate hypocrites. And, in this case, the mods and anyone else who supports that thread are hypocrites. I'm guessing it persists despite clearly violating board rules because Moraga is a Giants fan. Lame. That's no different than if Moraga left all Ralph Nader political posts up yet deleted all other political posts. Yes, it's his board and he can do what he wants, but I don't have to support it. If you don't see the hypocrisy, you must have your head up Will Clark's or Tommy Lasorda's ass.


SadbutTrue999
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Really don't see how it would hurt to just give him a drive at the beginning of the 2nd half, regardless of how Chase is doing (unless he's absolutely dominating, i guess). Just go in and tell both QBs thats the plan. Garbers is on his last year (i think), he's mature, and one of his better traits has always been that he seems even-keeled. There's no way he wouldn't see the sense in that plan.

Says a guy who hasn't even coached 5 & 6 year olds in soccer, anyway
72CalBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No. Let the experienced QB finish the season - he's earned it and is a team leader. Knows how to win with what the Bears have to give him.
Dduster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Bears are obviously not giving much. When is anyone in a podcast going to get on the O Line. Garbers can't do anything with the O Line being as poor quality as they have shown. No O Line, no Offense. Everyone knows the song. When is there going to be any indication of a Pac 12 level O Line?
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chapman_is_Gone said:

Should Millner replace Garbers this season if Cal is eliminated from bowl contention? Or, otherwise, when? "Invest in the future," as they say... This is assuming the coaching staff still believes in Millner's skill set after having seen him repeatedly in practice.

I would be disappointed if they don't at least give Millner SOME game action before the end of the year. A lot can be learned from doing that...
No, because Milner is not the next QB at Cal. If you go to practice, you will know that. It's going to be Rowell, Garner or Johnson. Milner is nowhere near ready.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Will Garbers be back next year?
Go Bears!
concernedparent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskidunker said:

Will Garbers be back next year?
I'd imagine so if he loves football. He's not good enough to be a next level player and there's no one behind him who can seriously challenge him for the role. Plus college is fun and I suspect his family can easily support him another year.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

Chapman_is_Gone said:

Should Millner replace Garbers this season if Cal is eliminated from bowl contention? Or, otherwise, when? "Invest in the future," as they say... This is assuming the coaching staff still believes in Millner's skill set after having seen him repeatedly in practice.

I would be disappointed if they don't at least give Millner SOME game action before the end of the year. A lot can be learned from doing that...
No, because Milner is not the next QB at Cal. If you go to practice, you will know that. It's going to be Rowell, Garner or Johnson. Milner is nowhere near ready.
That is what I figured based on the depth chart. Hence, my confusion why anyone would suggest Millner. Had the post listed Johnson, it would have been a different story…..
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

heartofthebear said:

Chapman_is_Gone said:

Should Millner replace Garbers this season if Cal is eliminated from bowl contention? Or, otherwise, when? "Invest in the future," as they say... This is assuming the coaching staff still believes in Millner's skill set after having seen him repeatedly in practice.

I would be disappointed if they don't at least give Millner SOME game action before the end of the year. A lot can be learned from doing that...
No, because Milner is not the next QB at Cal. If you go to practice, you will know that. It's going to be Rowell, Garner or Johnson. Milner is nowhere near ready.
That is what I figured based on the depth chart. Hence, my confusion why anyone would suggest Millner. Had the post listed Johnson, it would have been a different story…..

Yeah, but a few series for Kai Millner, with a limited number of plays that he can master, gets him on a faster learning curve, which is what we're talking about. The future.

OTOH, if Zach Johnson is still way ahead of Millner, I'd go with him.
BearsorCubs
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dude! If Milner is not on the depth chart, Why in the world would you think he will get series before the other two guys? What Planet are you on? No disrespect, but be realistic on the competition that is a practice every day….
Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?

1) I don't have the ability or the time to attend Cal practices. And because the mods chose to divide this community in half, I don't get much inside information.

2) Millner is the highest rated recruit at QB on the Cal roster. Johnson was not rated as highly, is only one year ahead of Millner, and has also not seen any game time. So it doesn't seem absurd to me to suggest that Millner could hurdle Johnson for next year.

3) If we give a walk-on (Rowell) the starting job or any game time, then God help us.

4) Glover's stats suck, unless you enjoy a 1:1 TD to interception ratio against weak competition. And, why would we invest game time in a transfer unless he's an excellent player? I'd rather invest in the future.

Glean all you want from the 2021 depth chart, but that doesn't tell you jack about looking ahead and making decisions in preparation for 2022. I agree that if Johnson has outperformed Millner to date it might make sense to see what he can do in limited game action this year. It would probably be the best for the team's success if Garbers returns, but I can't say that excites me as a fan in any way.




Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

Chapman_is_Gone said:

Should Millner replace Garbers this season if Cal is eliminated from bowl contention? Or, otherwise, when? "Invest in the future," as they say... This is assuming the coaching staff still believes in Millner's skill set after having seen him repeatedly in practice.

I would be disappointed if they don't at least give Millner SOME game action before the end of the year. A lot can be learned from doing that...
No, because Milner is not the next QB at Cal. If you go to practice, you will know that. It's going to be Rowell, Garner or Johnson. Milner is nowhere near ready.
No / doesn't exist / maybe.

You retired? How do you have time to attend practices?
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chapman_is_Gone said:

heartofthebear said:

Chapman_is_Gone said:

Should Millner replace Garbers this season if Cal is eliminated from bowl contention? Or, otherwise, when? "Invest in the future," as they say... This is assuming the coaching staff still believes in Millner's skill set after having seen him repeatedly in practice.

I would be disappointed if they don't at least give Millner SOME game action before the end of the year. A lot can be learned from doing that...
No, because Milner is not the next QB at Cal. If you go to practice, you will know that. It's going to be Rowell, Garner or Johnson. Milner is nowhere near ready.
No / doesn't exist / maybe.

You retired? How do you have time to attend practices?

I attend 1 or 2 practices in fall and spring. It tells me all I need to know. Things are obvious in practice if you are paying attention.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

71Bear said:

Big C said:


Yes, if Garbers is playing like he did in games one and five. If he is playing pretty well, as he did in games 2-4, I would say only if Millner is looking really good in practice. and, even then, only in spots (unless he's great in those spots, then more).

In college football, winning now is always the most important goal, even for the long term.
I'm confused. Why play Millner when he is not on the depth chart?

#2 is Glover
#3 is Johnson

Why wouldn't Glover or Johnson be the "next guy up"?

Heck, is Millner receiving snaps during the week?



Agree or disagree, you know why we're talking about playing Millner: the future.

Anyway, I'm more for playing the guy that gives us the best chance to win right now. That is probably Garbers, but I wouldn't hesitate to sit him for a couple of series, if he's not moving the team.


Glover is #2, but I'm not sure if he would have another year of eligibility next year. My guess is he would, like Bequette. But so would Garbers. Play him if you think he can add a spark and win today.

Johnson is #3 and a redshirt freshman. He basically has all his eligibility remaining. Seem like the guy to play if you are looking to the future.

The reason Milner may not be on the depth chart is he is redshirting, thus not on the short term depth chart. However, if he is the best QB, his redshirt should be burned. He can also play in 4 games and still redshirt, so if he is good, maybe we see him start in the last 4 games of the season.

The other factor is the coaches may want to send a signal to recruits like Martin or another top QB that the position is wide open next year.
Ccajon2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chapman_is_Gone said:

HearstMining said:

Here's a corollary to the OP's question: What if Garbers turns the season around and has, not a great season, but say a season like 2019 and since last year didn't count towards eligibility, he wants to return for 2022. What should Wilcox do?
Well, I certainly would welcome Garbers back with open arms, with open competition in camp next year for the QB spot.

Having too many decent QBs isn't our problem -- my main concern wasn't related to Garbers. It was 1) getting a head start on next year by getting next year's likely QB some much needed experience, and 2) if he plays well in limited action this year, at least it gives Wilcox and the program a "story to tell" for next year for recruiting purposes. That is important, and perhaps that prevents a recruit or two from flipping.

I just don't see how having a bit more knowledge about the QBs on your roster, rather than less, is a bad thing heading into next year.

71Bear, those two are obviously #2 and #3 on the QB depth chart because, I assume, Wilcox believes they give Cal the best chance to win RIGHT NOW if Garbers goes down. But neither has a resume worthy of the starting spot. If Garbers did go down, and we'd already been eliminated from bowl contention, we'd be fools not to play Millner.

And, by the way, I don't give a flying **** what any of you think about me. If I've learned anything over the past 20 years..... If you don't see the hypocrisy, you must have your head up Will Clark's or Tommy Lasorda's ass.





The problem is you don't do any research. You post quite a bit of stupid nonsense, and the em-bittered long time Cal "losers" on here live to pillary you for it. You made a major boo-boo by not even knowing who the #2 qb on the depth chart is. You'll never be forgiven nor will they ever forget this.
MathTeacherMike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If Millner were good enough to play this season he would be on the depth chart. Red-shirting is almost meaningless with the new rules where you can play in 4 games and not lose any eligibility. In other words, if he had shown the coaching staff that he had significantly more talent than the other quarterback behind Garbers - then there is no reason that he shouldn't take second-team snaps in practice. None.

I'm not saying that he has no talent or does not have the potential to be a starting QB for us - I have no idea. But unless the coaches are completely botching the use of our young players and don't know how to effectively take advantage of the new eligibility rules then it suggests that Kai is just not P5 game ready.

We have - on paper - many true freshmen that I'd think should be getting a lot of playing time at this point of the season. Perhaps that is one of the negative recruiting tools other schools are using against us both in signing players and recruiting players who have 'committed to us.
Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ccajon2 said:

Chapman_is_Gone said:

HearstMining said:

Here's a corollary to the OP's question: What if Garbers turns the season around and has, not a great season, but say a season like 2019 and since last year didn't count towards eligibility, he wants to return for 2022. What should Wilcox do?
Well, I certainly would welcome Garbers back with open arms, with open competition in camp next year for the QB spot.

Having too many decent QBs isn't our problem -- my main concern wasn't related to Garbers. It was 1) getting a head start on next year by getting next year's likely QB some much needed experience, and 2) if he plays well in limited action this year, at least it gives Wilcox and the program a "story to tell" for next year for recruiting purposes. That is important, and perhaps that prevents a recruit or two from flipping.

I just don't see how having a bit more knowledge about the QBs on your roster, rather than less, is a bad thing heading into next year.

71Bear, those two are obviously #2 and #3 on the QB depth chart because, I assume, Wilcox believes they give Cal the best chance to win RIGHT NOW if Garbers goes down. But neither has a resume worthy of the starting spot. If Garbers did go down, and we'd already been eliminated from bowl contention, we'd be fools not to play Millner.

And, by the way, I don't give a flying **** what any of you think about me. If I've learned anything over the past 20 years..... If you don't see the hypocrisy, you must have your head up Will Clark's or Tommy Lasorda's ass.





The problem is you don't do any research. You post quite a bit of stupid nonsense, and the em-bittered long time Cal "losers" on here live to pillary you for it. You made a major boo-boo by not even knowing who the #2 qb on the depth chart is. You'll never be forgiven nor will they ever forget this.


Jeepers, this is quite serious. I guess I'll just get on my horse and ride out of town. Please don't "pillary" me any more, it's just awful!

(AND I was talking about preparing for 2022…this year's depth chart is meaningless to my argument. And I do more research than most posters on this board, who are like "uh, yeah, Snyder was gunna have the #1 class that year including that Heisman running back, what's his name. but then Snyder left… if you don't know, Google will help you… Dude above can't even get the QB's names right. just two examples of many…).
UrsineMaximus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Once we are mathematically eliminated from a bowl I would absolutely bench Garbers. But I wouldn't stop there. Daltoso would be benched (he already should be) and for whatever number of games we have left, I would start a different lineup at OL in order to get ALL linemen on game film. As a coach I would need to know how many of these OL can play Pac12 ball ~ we have 15 or so guys but can only produce a 6 deep rotation? Either these OL can't play or these OL coaches (Greatwood/McClure) can't coach. Granted OL is the toughest position group to matriculate to the college game but jeeez 4 years of the worst OL in the Pac12 is wearing fans out!!

Garbers should be replaced by whomever the coaches feel is TRULY the future of Cal football. Glover w/ one year of eligibility is necessarily ruled out, which leaves Johnson or Millner. I'm guessing here but Millner likely has been running scout team and throwing to J-Mike and Anderson ~ the FUTURE ~ so my hope is that Millner would play a lot in the last 5 - 6 games of THIS year.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not going to happen. Head in the sand. Double speak. Bad is good. Nothing is wrong.


Go Bears!
MilleniaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Given Glover's experience I'd go as far as replacing Garbers at halftime of Oregon game if we aren't winning. "Don't cost nothing".
pasadenaorbust
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearoutEast67 said:

In a word, no.
Chase is ranked 5th in the conference in passing yards and is within 24 yards of Jayden Daniels of ASU, who sits in 3rd place.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MilleniaBear said:

Given Glover's experience I'd go as far as replacing Garbers at halftime of Oregon game if we aren't winning. "Don't cost nothing".

The first time Garbers has three consecutive bad series (or two really bad ones), I'd sit him for awhile.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.